WASHINGTON, DC—In a decisive 1–0 decision Monday, President Bush voted to grant the president the constitutional power to grant himself additional powers.

"As president, I strongly believe that my first duty as president is to support and serve the president," Bush said during a televised address from the East Room of the White House shortly after signing his executive order. "I promise the American people that I will not abuse this new power, unless it becomes necessary to grant myself the power to do so at a later time."

The Presidential Empowerment Act, which the president hand-drafted on his own Oval Office stationery and promptly signed into law, provides Bush with full authority to permit himself to authorize increased jurisdiction over the three branches of the federal government, provided that the president considers it in his best interest to do so.

"In a time of war, the president must have the power he needs to make the tough decisions, including, if need be, the decision to grant himself even more power," Bush said. "To do otherwise would be playing into the hands of our enemies."

Added Bush: "And it's all under due process of the law as I see it."

In addition, the president reserves the right to overturn any decision to allow himself to increase his power by using a line-item veto, which in turn may only be overruled by the president.

"Previously, the president only had the power to petition Congress to allow him to grant himself the power to grant more power to himself," Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said shortly after the ceremony. "Now, the president can grant himself the power to interpret new laws however he sees fit, then use that power to interpret a law in such a manner that in turn grants him increased power."

In addition, a proviso in the 12th provision of the new law permits Bush the authority to waive the need for any presidential authorization of power in a case concerning national security, although legal experts suggest it would be little exercised.

Despite the president's new powers, the role of Congress and the Supreme Court has not been overlooked. Under the new law, both enjoy the newly broadened ability to grant the president the authority to increase his presidential powers.

"This gives the president the tools he needs to ensure that the president has all the necessary tools to expedite what needs to be done, unfettered by presidential restrictions on himself," said Rep. John Cornyn (R-TX). "It's long overdue."

Though public response to the new law has been limited, there has been an unfavorable reaction among Democrats, who are calling for restrictions on Bush's power to allow himself to grant the president more powers that would restrict the powers of Congress.

"This is a clear case of President Bush having carte blanche to grant himself complete discretion to enact laws to increase his power," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "The only thing we can do now is withhold our ability to grant him more authority to grant himself more power."

"Unless he authorizes himself to strip us of that power," Reid added.

Despite criticism, Bush took his first official action under the new law Tuesday, signing an executive order ordering that the chief executive be able to order more executive orders.

In addition, Republicans fearful that the president's new power undermines their ability to grant him power have proposed a new law that would allow senators to permit him to grant himself power, with or without presidential approval.

WASHINGTON, DC?In a decisive 1?0 decision Monday, President Bush voted to grant the president the constitutional power to grant himself additional powers.

What he ought grant himself is a brain it's obvious by the things he says proves to me he doesn't have one!!! He's nothing but a bunch of hot air and :bs: When he talks this is what I hear :blah:

HometownGal

08-03-2006, 12:44 PM

Actually I have no problem with this. The President's position historically has always been that of a figurehead who has had to bow down and kiss the feet of the Senate/Congress to take any immediate action on anything. It took day upon day upon day to wade through of all of the political mud-slinging and red tape to get "permission" to act on virtually anything.

Jeremy

08-03-2006, 12:52 PM

Actually I have no problem with this. The President's position historically has always been that of a figurehead who has had to bow down and kiss the feet of the Senate/Congress to take any immediate action on anything. It took day upon day upon day to wade through of all of the political mud-slinging and red tape to get "permission" to act on virtually anything.

It's called checks and balances. It's the basis on that radical theory we call democrcy. I'm sure people like yourself would be perfectly comfortable living in Cuba where the will of the dictator is law. But those of us who enjoy the democratic process actually take comfort in the fact that the President cannot simply assert his will however he sees fit.

Cape Cod Steel Head

08-03-2006, 01:09 PM

It's called checks and balances. It's the basis on that radical theory we call democrcy. I'm sure people like yourself would be perfectly comfortable living in Cuba where the will of the dictator is law. But those of us who enjoy the democratic process actually take comfort in the fact that the President cannot simply assert his will however he sees fit.Damn those Founding Fathers!

Mosca

08-03-2006, 01:23 PM

I'm not so sure about that, HG. Historically the President has always had more power than any one person in the US government. Historically presidents had more power than they do today; the line was pulled back at the request of the American people in the wake of the Watergate scandal. You could make a fair case that it was quite a restriction, but it by no means reduced the President to a figurehead. And most recent presidents have had Congress at the crack of a whip (Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Truman, Roosevelt); even Carter and Ford got what they asked for even if it was wrong, and most of Clinton's legislation got passed even though Congress was controlled by the Republicans at the time.

I voted for Bush the first time; I have no problem crossing party lines for the guy I think is best. But his campaign promise in '00 was to end the partisanism, to end the rule of the extremes, and in the last 6 years it's only gotten worse. And the party in power now feels that they don't need to listen to those of us who disagree with what's happening; there is a growing official distain for anything that even hints at a lack of lock-step agreement, manifest in subversively recalcitrant "signing statements".

It's OK to have a president with power. As much as I disagreed with Reagan's politics, I have no problem saying that he was a great American and a powerful president. But I also believe that "of the people, by the people and for the people" is still the way our country should be governed. And I respect that even an arch-conservative like Reagan could be a great president playing under those rules.

And finally, remember that it cuts both ways. It's not hard to imagine the backlash from the current administration's policies leading to a sweep of Congress this year, and a sweep of the White House in '08. Would you want the idea of rule by presidential fiat to be established as fact when the sitting president wants all cars to be run by ethanol by the end of 2010? When said president wants the power to ignore treaties ratified by Congress (like Bush is doing now)? I don't. I trust my GOVERNMENT, not my PRESIDENT. My President is a single, fallible man. My current President is inclined to act from the gut rather than through thought and analysis; that's OK for office politics and car clubs, but it's not a very good strategy for deciding the future of the human race. I prefer a bit more deliberation and consultation.

Tom

klick81

08-03-2006, 01:30 PM

LOL! Are you all serious? The Onion is a satirical newspaper (if you can call it that). This is a joke :smile:

Mosca

08-03-2006, 01:50 PM

klick81,

I think we all know that, but the issue itself is also being discussed seriously. The Onion drew a serious point with its satire, and we are now following up on it (but perhaps not as wittily!)

I like a point like HometownGal made, though. I disagree with it, but unless there was something to be said IN FAVOR OF more power, we wouldn't have to think about it. It's only because there are two good points that it's even an issue. By debating it this way, we can decide for ourselves which is the stronger argument, and then realize that we are powerless to do anything about it UNLESS WE GET OUT AND VOTE.

Tom

HometownGal

08-03-2006, 02:12 PM

It's called checks and balances. It's the basis on that radical theory we call democrcy. I'm sure people like yourself would be perfectly comfortable living in Cuba where the will of the dictator is law. But those of us who enjoy the democratic process actually take comfort in the fact that the President cannot simply assert his will however he sees fit.

Excuse me - but where in the bloody blue hell are you getting that from? :rolleyes: In a time of war, which we are presently in, I believe the President should have the authority to do what he feels is necessary to safeguard our country and continue his efforts in the fight against terrorism instead of waiting for all of the political mumbo jumbo to die down long enough for both parties to come together and make a sound decision that is best for our country. Both parties are equally guilty of that behavior

Despite the president's new powers, the role of Congress and the Supreme Court has not been overlooked. Under the new law, both enjoy the newly broadened ability to grant the president the authority to increase his presidential powers.

"This gives the president the tools he needs to ensure that the president has all the necessary tools to expedite what needs to be done, unfettered by presidential restrictions on himself," said Rep. John Cornyn (R-TX). "It's long overdue."

I support democracy for the most part, but I also believe that the President of this country should also have the authority to make IMMEDIATE decisions on issues he feels require immediate action.

Mosca

08-03-2006, 02:25 PM

Um, maybe we're NOT all aware that it was a satire...

Thing is, HG, the president has declared an odd sort of "war for forever". Are you prepared to grant these powers in extension for a peroid of time until which perhaps a generation might never know the freedom we have now? For, say a hundred years?

Tom

Livinginthe past

08-03-2006, 02:34 PM

Thats was an excellent article Tom - and you are right it does open a whole avenue of discussion.

I was reading somewhere recently that Bush is one of the Presidents to use the fewest 'Presidential veto's' in his time in office.

If I remember rightly it was regarding the subject of stem cell research using embryos.

Does this mean that Bush has been taking more peoples views into account or (as I suspect) that he has large enough majorities or back avenues to push through pretty much anything he wants to without resorting to the 'Presidential Veto'?

NM

X-Terminator

08-03-2006, 02:55 PM

It's called checks and balances. It's the basis on that radical theory we call democrcy. I'm sure people like yourself would be perfectly comfortable living in Cuba where the will of the dictator is law. But those of us who enjoy the democratic process actually take comfort in the fact that the President cannot simply assert his will however he sees fit.

That is not what she meant here - she's advocating a more streamlined process when it comes to decision-making in a time of war, and giving the President the power to act QUICKLY without getting bogged down in governmental red tape. Everyone knows that the government (Congress in particular) moves slower than a slug in molasses on virtually everything it does - that is not sound policy when you're trying to defend the country. Besides, he would still to have to consult with his advisors as well as the leaders of the House and Senate, so it isn't like the legislative branch would be completely out of the loop.

Mosca

08-03-2006, 03:31 PM

In a time of war, in a time of war...

Again, "war" implies state vs state. This is some sort of weird conflict where we are guessing at who is or isn't on our side, and we seem to be taking a stance that everyone who isn't with us 100% is against us... and our president has made the statement that this "war" may last a very long time.

So I'll ask again, are you prepared to give kingly power to elected officials virtually in perpetuity, as they continually redefine the circumstances under which they need this power (something Bush did, and something you KNOW every president hereafter will do because Bush got away with it)?

Hey, if the answer is "yes", that's cool. But be prepared to be royally pissed off when the president you don't agree with takes office. Sauce for the goose 'n all, y'know.

This "war" moves slowly, by the way. What was the last war that had 5 years in between attacks?

I'm a conservative, I make my living exploiting the economy; I'm a pure capitalist. And I think that we are on a very dangerously misguided path. Look at the world since 9/11. It's gotten far worse, and it's our president that's made it worse. Giving this man more power is not the answer.

Tom

Jeremy

08-03-2006, 03:57 PM

Giving this man more power is not the answer.

Granting any President more power is not the answer.

Cape Cod Steel Head

08-03-2006, 04:40 PM

When did Bush ask congress to declare war on Iraq?

Volpe1564

08-03-2006, 05:54 PM

Even though we(the republican's) have control over the house, senate, and congress(elected by the people!) we still have problems getting things through becuase of Scum politicians(ie- Chuck(Police only need guns) Shumer, John(voted for before i voted agaisnt)Kerry, (Dingy)Harry Reid, and alot more that i could name. Even though they do not have control(again voted on by the people) they still feel that they are in control. they try to override anything that we try to put through. so yes i think this is a great idea.

Volpe1564

08-03-2006, 05:58 PM

When did Bush ask congress to declare war on Iraq?

here one of the last things that the house approved
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061600572.html

couldnt find the first approval by congress but im sure its there:rolleyes:

Jeremy

08-03-2006, 06:05 PM

Even though we(the republican's) have control over the house, senate, and congress(elected by the people!) we still have problems getting things through becuase of Scum politicians(ie- Chuck(Police only need guns) Shumer, John(voted for before i voted agaisnt)Kerry, (Dingy)Harry Reid, and alot more that i could name. Even though they do not have control(again voted on by the people) they still feel that they are in control. they try to override anything that we try to put through. so yes i think this is a great idea.

And the Republicans did the same thing to the Democrats when the Democrats held power.

This sniping back and forth between political parties is pretty funny to those of us who call ourselves libretarians. Both parties are so hopelessly married to big money causes that they've ignored the average American for decades.

I see you mention quite a few Democrats as scum, but you leave out people like Tom Delay. Corrupt is corrupt, it doesn't matter what capital letter is next to their name.

Mosca

08-03-2006, 06:52 PM

Even though we(the republican's) have control over the house, senate, and congress(elected by the people!) we still have problems getting things through becuase of Scum politicians(ie- Chuck(Police only need guns) Shumer, John(voted for before i voted agaisnt)Kerry, (Dingy)Harry Reid, and alot more that i could name. Even though they do not have control(again voted on by the people) they still feel that they are in control. they try to override anything that we try to put through. so yes i think this is a great idea.

You say "we (the republicans)" as if this is some sort of sports rivalry; it's not. Republicans and Democrats are effectively 50-50 in this country, and most of us aren't really married to either party; we have to choose one at age 18 if we want to vote in the primaries. I turned 18 when Nixon was president and Watergate was flaring, so I picked Democrat.

We're all in it together, we're all Americans. And if you want this country to thrive, you're better off realizing that there are a lot of Americans who are, for example, like Cindy Sheehan. Like Michael Moore. Like Al Franken. And also like Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. Bill OReilly.

And then you'd do best TO SHUT THEM ALL IN A ROOM SOMEWHERE AND LET THEM FIGHT IT OUT AMONGST THEMSELVES, because we have work to do out here running a country, and all those people are getting in the way, making everyone believe that it's not what you say but how loud you shout it.

Oh-- so where was I? Yes. In my 50+ years, the best years we've had have been when EITHER party in power recognizes that you get more results with honey than you do with a stick. Those would be the Nixon years (Nixon was the father of the EPA, you know), the Reagan years, the Kennedy and Clinton years. If you look at Nixon and Reagan, you'll see conservatives with a strong populist streak; if you look at Kennedy and Clinton, you'll see populists with a strong conservative streak. (I didn't use the word "liberal" because a true liberal has always been completely unelectable in America. The use of the word "liberal" as a smear term for centrists is one of the most disgusting turns of the last 15 years.)

Bush campaigned in his first year as a conservative with a strong populist streak, vowing to heal the divisions between the parties. But division is now worse than it has ever been in my lifetime, far worse than it was in the '60s (when Americans were SHOT AND KILLED by National Guard troops). And populist issues like the environment, education, health care, and the economy have been ignored or outright gutted by legislation with misleading titles like "The Clean Air Initiative" (allowing companies to buy pollution as an alternative to investing in cleaner plants) , "The No Child Left Behind Act" (which sets out a series of penalties for not reaching goals, but allows no funding for or advice on how to reach those goals), the "Prescription Drug Act" (have you ever sat down with a senior citizen and tried to figure this out? I did. You can't), and what can only be called "The Borrowing Our Children's Future to Line Our Pockets Act".

And now, there is a concerted effort by Bush, Gonzales, and their advisors to create an "Imperial Presidency". Well this guy ain't buying it. The president is a citizen, and as such he has to obey the laws that govern his actions that we told Congress to write.

Tom

SteelCzar76

08-03-2006, 07:09 PM

Bush Grants Self Permission To Grant More Power To Self

The Onion,
August 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, DC?In a decisive 1?0 decision Monday, President Bush voted to grant the president the constitutional power to grant himself additional powers.

"As president, I strongly believe that my first duty as president is to support and serve the president," Bush said during a televised address from the East Room of the White House shortly after signing his executive order. "I promise the American people that I will not abuse this new power, unless it becomes necessary to grant myself the power to do so at a later time."

The Presidential Empowerment Act, which the president hand-drafted on his own Oval Office stationery and promptly signed into law, provides Bush with full authority to permit himself to authorize increased jurisdiction over the three branches of the federal government, provided that the president considers it in his best interest to do so.

"In a time of war, the president must have the power he needs to make the tough decisions, including, if need be, the decision to grant himself even more power," Bush said. "To do otherwise would be playing into the hands of our enemies."

Added Bush: "And it's all under due process of the law as I see it."

In addition, the president reserves the right to overturn any decision to allow himself to increase his power by using a line-item veto, which in turn may only be overruled by the president.

"Previously, the president only had the power to petition Congress to allow him to grant himself the power to grant more power to himself," Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said shortly after the ceremony. "Now, the president can grant himself the power to interpret new laws however he sees fit, then use that power to interpret a law in such a manner that in turn grants him increased power."

In addition, a proviso in the 12th provision of the new law permits Bush the authority to waive the need for any presidential authorization of power in a case concerning national security, although legal experts suggest it would be little exercised.

Despite the president's new powers, the role of Congress and the Supreme Court has not been overlooked. Under the new law, both enjoy the newly broadened ability to grant the president the authority to increase his presidential powers.

"This gives the president the tools he needs to ensure that the president has all the necessary tools to expedite what needs to be done, unfettered by presidential restrictions on himself," said Rep. John Cornyn (R-TX). "It's long overdue."

Though public response to the new law has been limited, there has been an unfavorable reaction among Democrats, who are calling for restrictions on Bush's power to allow himself to grant the president more powers that would restrict the powers of Congress.

"This is a clear case of President Bush having carte blanche to grant himself complete discretion to enact laws to increase his power," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "The only thing we can do now is withhold our ability to grant him more authority to grant himself more power."

"Unless he authorizes himself to strip us of that power," Reid added.

Despite criticism, Bush took his first official action under the new law Tuesday, signing an executive order ordering that the chief executive be able to order more executive orders.

In addition, Republicans fearful that the president's new power undermines their ability to grant him power have proposed a new law that would allow senators to permit him to grant himself power, with or without presidential approval.

If it is the Creator's will,.... and the man is worthy of such power,....then so be it. If you feel diffrently,.. then prove yourself as one whom should be considered as such. But remember,.......heavy is the head that bears the crown and such responsibilty. Think of this,.... before any critique.

"Hail Caesar,....Hail the Black and Gold"

LambertIsGod58

08-03-2006, 07:18 PM

What he ought grant himself is a brain it's obvious by the things he says proves to me he doesn't have one!!! He's nothing but a bunch of hot air and :bs: When he talks this is what I hear :blah:

Yeah, I got a better idea...Let's impeach Bush and put John "flip-flop" Kerry in there. And Bush is stupid, that's why he is where he is. This whole take is sarcasm. You sound like a typical American that always thinks the grass is greener on the other side. I would love to see where we would have been if Kerry was President. I'd vote for Hillary before I'd piss on Kerry if he was on fire. Read a book called "Unfit For Command". It will tell you alot and it was written by the soldiers who served with him.

Jeremy

08-03-2006, 08:01 PM

What worries me is that so many people seem to be taking this seriously.

MattsMe

08-03-2006, 08:17 PM

What worries me is that so many people seem to be taking this seriously.

:iagree:

klick81

08-03-2006, 08:23 PM

What worries me is that so many people seem to be taking this seriously.

:iagree:

And believe it would be acceptable :pity:

Volpe1564

08-03-2006, 08:26 PM

You say "we (the republicans)" as if this is some sort of sports rivalry; it's not. Republicans and Democrats are effectively 50-50 in this country, and most of us aren't really married to either party; we have to choose one at age 18 if we want to vote in the primaries. I turned 18 when Nixon was president and Watergate was flaring, so I picked Democrat.

We're all in it together, we're all Americans. And if you want this country to thrive, you're better off realizing that there are a lot of Americans who are, for example, like Cindy Sheehan. Like Michael Moore. Like Al Franken. And also like Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. Bill OReilly.

And then you'd do best TO SHUT THEM ALL IN A ROOM SOMEWHERE AND LET THEM FIGHT IT OUT AMONGST THEMSELVES, because we have work to do out here running a country, and all those people are getting in the way, making everyone believe that it's not what you say but how loud you shout it.

Oh-- so where was I? Yes. In my 50+ years, the best years we've had have been when EITHER party in power recognizes that you get more results with honey than you do with a stick. Those would be the Nixon years (Nixon was the father of the EPA, you know), the Reagan years, the Kennedy and Clinton years. If you look at Nixon and Reagan, you'll see conservatives with a strong populist streak; if you look at Kennedy and Clinton, you'll see populists with a strong conservative streak. (I didn't use the word "liberal" because a true liberal has always been completely unelectable in America. The use of the word "liberal" as a smear term for centrists is one of the most disgusting turns of the last 15 years.)

Bush campaigned in his first year as a conservative with a strong populist streak, vowing to heal the divisions between the parties. But division is now worse than it has ever been in my lifetime, far worse than it was in the '60s (when Americans were SHOT AND KILLED by National Guard troops). And populist issues like the environment, education, health care, and the economy have been ignored or outright gutted by legislation with misleading titles like "The Clean Air Initiative" (allowing companies to buy pollution as an alternative to investing in cleaner plants) , "The No Child Left Behind Act" (which sets out a series of penalties for not reaching goals, but allows no funding for or advice on how to reach those goals), the "Prescription Drug Act" (have you ever sat down with a senior citizen and tried to figure this out? I did. You can't), and what can only be called "The Borrowing Our Children's Future to Line Our Pockets Act".

And now, there is a concerted effort by Bush, Gonzales, and their advisors to create an "Imperial Presidency". Well this guy ain't buying it. The president is a citizen, and as such he has to obey the laws that govern his actions that we told Congress to write.

Tom

And now, there is a concerted effort by Bush, Gonzales, and their advisors to create an "Imperial Presidency". Well this guy ain't buying it. The president is a citizen, and as such he has to obey the laws that govern his actions that we told Congress to write.

Politics is about ideas: Abortion, Gun Rights, less govt, less taxes, etc. you pick the party that you feel best promotes your ideals. Eventho i dont believe that Bush is perfect, i do stand by alot of his decisions. as far as "Imperial" bs goes, if he doesnt fight back for what he believes in then his base hates him, he fights and the other side screams waves their hands and crys foul.

You say "we (the republicans)" as if this is some sort of sports rivalry; it's not.
You are right, it is about what you believe is the amercian way, if you have another party(Communist, Democrate, or Whatever!!) that is trying to erode your rights and change what you believe is the amercian way, then you have to defeat them! Eventho they go to the same bar after work you have to defeat them while on the job(or on the field, however you look at it). Im not saying that i hate the people in the Dem party, i just feel that their ideas are very reckless, and are nothing close to what i believe. Im not saying that just cause they are a Dem im not gonna like their ideas, i just honestly dont believe in there way of thinking. But there are some that i like, just not often:smile:

Bush campaigned in his first year as a conservative with a strong populist streak, vowing to heal the divisions between the parties. But division is now worse than it has ever been in my lifetime, far worse than it was in the '60s (when Americans were SHOT AND KILLED by National Guard troops).
YES there are other ways to do it but to just go out and say he doesnt try to work with the other side is absurd. it takes 2 to tango. this Democratic Party has done more obstructing than working together.

Personaly im pretty upset with my party.
There has not been one Good pro gun bill passed.
We should have approached the boarders/illegal aliens with a better idea
I could list abunch more but hindsight is 20/20
If you want a party that caters to only Your views go get an island and be president of it. like life you deal with the cards you got.

"We're all in it together, we're all Americans. And if you want this country to thrive, you're better off realizing that there are a lot of Americans who are, for example, like Cindy Sheehan. Like Michael Moore. Like Al Franken. And also like Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. Bill OReilly. "
i think i get what you were trying to say and for the most part i agree with you. But there is nothing wrong with saying what you believe. I do honestly believe that part of the left hates our troops. I have a few friends over in Iraq now, and one that is not coming back. He died fighting for what he believed in, and im very proud to say he's my friend. If i wouldnt have gotten married and wanted to have a family i would be over there too, but i didnt reup.

Sorry
Didnt mean to jump around with your talking points.

Chris

LambertIsGod58

08-03-2006, 08:27 PM

What worries me is that so many people seem to be taking this seriously.

I take the standing of our country very seriously....I take the freedoms I have seriously...It's a result of our military's men & women. Some who make the ultimate sacrifice for you....who doesn't take this seriously. Their lives mean something to me.

Volpe1564

08-03-2006, 08:32 PM

And believe it would be acceptable :pity:

This is our country, we should have a heated debate about what we believe in. Nothing wrong with hating the ideals, just not the people that have them.:usa:

Jeremy

08-03-2006, 08:34 PM

I take the standing of our country very seriously....I take the freedoms I have seriously...It's a result of our military's men & women. Some who make the ultimate sacrifice for you....who doesn't take this seriously. Their lives mean something to me.

1. I'm active duty Air Force. So spare me.

2. The article which started all of this was satrical. If you don't know what that means, look it up and get back to me.

Stlrs4Life

08-03-2006, 08:37 PM

This has to be a joke.

Volpe1564

08-03-2006, 08:46 PM

1. I'm active duty Air Force. So spare me.

2. The article which started all of this was satrical. If you don't know what that means, look it up and get back to me.

1.I severed in the USN and i agree with everything that he said so you spare me.

2.its spelled "satirical" and it means "Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change."

3. that is a nice Leftest/elitist trick with the words "i cant get my point across so im gonna try to insult his intellegence" is what it boils down to.

Volpe1564

08-03-2006, 08:48 PM

BTW unless we can DEBATE our points without trying to act like kids and insult each other then i think they are gonna lock this thread :)

Jeremy

08-03-2006, 08:52 PM

Thank you for pointing out my spelling mistake.

I'm living the sacrifice he speaks about. I don't need to be lectured about it from someone who's never worn the uniform. You want to support the military, get off the message board and head down to a VA Hospital and spend some time with the vets. Give some money to the USO. Do anything substantial but don't lecture people who are actually wearing the uniform about sacrifice when you have no idea what sacrifice really is all about.

And in case you missed it, I'm not a liberal.

Volpe1564

08-03-2006, 09:05 PM

I'm living the sacrifice he speaks about. I don't need to be lectured about it from someone who's never worn the uniform.

Just because someone wasnt "there" doesnt mean that they cant voice his opinion. Just cause they themselves have not served doesnt mean that they do not have a close friend, son, bother/sister in. Yes you are making that sacrifice now but its not that a million before/after you will not do it. I have a close friend that is a Cop in Mesa Az, He was the first Marine battalion to go into fallujah, and lost a few of his friends. When you talk to him he doesnt brag about it, or even talk about it unless you ask. That is a true hero to me, not me that sat on a ship for 4 years. i bet you for as much as he was going through over there in the shit, his wife and mother was going through just as much in a differnet way. so just because someone isnt over there doesnt mean that they cant speak their mind.

ps-didnt say you were a lib just said it was a lib thing to do:smile:

Jeremy

08-03-2006, 09:54 PM

I understand what you're saying and I respect it. But you have to understand that I'm sick to death of people talking about the sacrifice made by military members when they don't really know anything about it.

I'm going to step away from this topic now before I get upset.

Mosca

08-03-2006, 10:40 PM

You are right, it is about what you believe is the amercian way, if you have another party(Communist, Democrate, or Whatever!!) that is trying to erode your rights and change what you believe is the amercian way, then you have to defeat them! Eventho they go to the same bar after work you have to defeat them while on the job(or on the field, however you look at it). Im not saying that i hate the people in the Dem party, i just feel that their ideas are very reckless, and are nothing close to what i believe. Im not saying that just cause they are a Dem im not gonna like their ideas, i just honestly dont believe in there way of thinking. But there are some that i like, just not often

Well now, I disagree vehemently with what you are saying here. The "American Way" doesn't mean that the 50.1% majority gets to stuff its agenda down the throat of the 49.9% minority. It means that the sides who disagree get together and find some middle ground that both can live with. I don't consider opinions different from mine unAmerican; they are simply coming from people with different agendas, perhaps from a different part of the country where needs are different. America is not a monolith, it is an amalgam of wildly different people... wildly different people who need each other to progress. You don't DEFEAT the other Americans; you get along with them, you give some to get some. It's worked that way for 200+ years. If you are at odds with friends, you look for win-win solutions. You don't look to "defeat" them, because you might wind up wrong, and then when it's their turn they won't forget that beatin' you laid on them... you're gonna need that guy then if you want your family to prosper. Because that's what we want; we want to free our families from need.

I'm a Democrat, but I'm also conservative, both economically and socially. I work for ultra-conservative US Representative Don Sherwood, 38th District (but I'm not in politics). If Don and I can get along, if we can talk about current events and make sense to each other, then there's no reason anyone else can't get along. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia are close personal friends; their families spent holidays together and vacation together. If those two, oil and water ideologically, can find common ground and compromise then all the rest of us should be able to as well. They have voted together on far more decisions than they have split. That must mean that The Constitution isn't so subject to interpretation as pundits would have us believe. Because that's what it comes down to. The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to disagree openly with their government, without the threat of said government strongarming them into submission or branding them unAmerican for said disagreement, for exercising their American rights. Hell, we ARE the government, or at least we're supposed to be; Democracy is self-governance. And if it's good enough to fight for in Iraq, then it's good enough to stand up for here. And THAT'S why I resist this idea of expanded presidential power. Because it threatens my right to self governance, my right to elect representatives for the purpose of steering this country.

Tom

BTW, Any relation to the Volpes that grew up in Pleasant Hills? I played softball with John back in the '70s.

Volpe1564

08-04-2006, 02:16 AM

Jerm i understand you bro, i really do.

Tom you aswell. i wish we could come together on both sides alot more. it just seems like those times are gone. agree with just about everything that you said. like i said defeat them at work, but buy em a beer after work. i dont hate anyone, i just dont think that some of the Dem's ideas are not very sensible.

Chris

BTW- Tom i dont know, my family is from Greenfield(down in the "run") and Hazelwood. my grandfather had a shoe shop(50's-60's) near Alderdice. He knew everyone. lol

MasterOfPuppets

08-04-2006, 02:33 AM

Jerm i understand you bro, i really do.

Tom you aswell. i wish we could come together on both sides alot more. it just seems like those times are gone. agree with just about everything that you said. like i said defeat them at work, but buy em a beer after work. i dont hate anyone, i just dont think that some of the Dem's ideas are not very sensible.
Chris

BTW- Tom i dont know, my family is from Greenfield(down in the "run") and Hazelwood. my grandfather had a shoe shop(50's-60's) near Alderdice. He knew everyone. lol
that can be said of either party. the whole dem vs rep thing is really getting out of hand with their petty bickering. either side is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face and it is litterally destroying the country. when i evaluate a potential politician i tend to look to see if he or she is willing to except an idea or work with a proposals from the other party.

Mosca

08-04-2006, 08:09 AM

MoP, that's what I was going to say. There are some mighty ****amamie schemes coming from the Republicans too.

Volpe1564, you can't divide this into "during work and after work". You have to get along and forge win-win solutions all the time. Which means that you have to poke holes in the ideas that don't work, but you have to give reasons; and you have to listen to and try to understand why the other side holds the position they do, and you have to make a concession here to get a point accepted there, because that's what you want them to do for your ideas. Because if you insist on victory, but lose, then life is going to be pretty miserable for you when the tables turn, because prople don't forget when you rub their noses in it, and there is no time limit, the "game" never ends. When it is done right, America produces a level of constant long term growth that allows everyone to prosper. It's a formula that has worked well for almost 250 years. Insistence on domination of one set of ideas over another is a sure way to destroy that.

Tom

Volpe1564

08-04-2006, 11:48 AM

Tom i could counter what you said but there is no point. you made your point and i agree....just please dont tell my wife that i was proved wrong(about the working together thing):hmmph: ill never hear the end of it :smile: ... as for everything else...well 1 point is better than none:bouncy:

lamberts-lost-tooth

08-04-2006, 11:55 AM

be prepared to be royally pissed off when the president you don't agree with takes office.

...which seems to be the reason for this thread in the first place:rolleyes:

Mosca

08-04-2006, 12:00 PM

Hey, I'll say it again, I voted for the guy.

lamberts-lost-tooth

08-04-2006, 12:22 PM

Hey, I'll say it again, I voted for the guy.

Not aimed at you Mosca...just getting nauseated by the liberal lovefest in some of these threads..I innocently open a thread and stumble upon Bill Clinton making out in the back seat with Nancy Pelosi.....:horror:

Mosca

08-04-2006, 12:40 PM

And, I'm not royally pissed off, at least not at those with whom I've bantered here and not with you either; one thing I really like about these kinds of discussions among us here at SF is that everyone makes their point pretty well, and with very little personal acrimony.

I think the original satirical article is pretty funny. I like the thoughtfulness that went into most of the replies.

I happen to agree that some streamlining should be done to improve response to threats, but I disagree that the president himself should be the one who decides what and how much; fox and henhouse, y'know?

And I believe that the measures taken to streamline response time so far are ineffective compared to real things that could have been done to shore up our ports and borders. The enemy knows that they are being tracked through high tech measures; therefore their strength will be in low-tech solutions. It's Ender's Game. Don't underestimate your opponents' ability to adapt.

We NEED to express our views to each other and to listen. It's important for me to hear Volpe, and it's important for him to hear me. And it's important for me to hear you. We're not going anywhere alone, wherever this leads we are together.

Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth

08-04-2006, 12:47 PM

And, I'm not royally pissed off, at least not at those with whom I've bantered here and not with you either; one thing I really like about these kinds of discussions among us here at SF is that everyone makes their point pretty well, and with very little personal acrimony.

I think the original satirical article is pretty funny. I like the thoughtfulness that went into most of the replies.

I happen to agree that some streamlining should be done to improve response to threats, but I disagree that the president himself should be the one who decides what and how much; fox and henhouse, y'know?

And I believe that the measures taken to streamline response time so far are ineffective compared to real things that could have been done to shore up our ports and borders. The enemy knows that they are being tracked through high tech measures; therefore their strength will be in low-tech solutions. It's Ender's Game. Don't underestimate your opponents' ability to adapt.

We NEED to express our views to each other and to listen. It's important for me to hear Volpe, and it's important for him to hear me. And it's important for me to hear you. We're not going anywhere alone, wherever this leads we are together.

Tom

excellent post...and well thought out...(and we talked to each other without it looking like we are going to be picking out curtains anytime soon:sofunny: :sofunny: )

Stlrs4Life

08-04-2006, 10:40 PM

Thats was an excellent article Tom - and you are right it does open a whole avenue of discussion.

I was reading somewhere recently that Bush is one of the Presidents to use the fewest 'Presidential veto's' in his time in office.

If I remember rightly it was regarding the subject of stem cell research using embryos.

Does this mean that Bush has been taking more peoples views into account or (as I suspect) that he has large enough majorities or back avenues to push through pretty much anything he wants to without resorting to the 'Presidential Veto'?

NM

That's your answer. He for sure doesn't listen to peoples views. Especially if they don't agree with him.